On the 19th of July in 2011 the National Press Club of Australia held a debate on climate change. In this video I will be analysing the claims Monckton made during the debate and if they are correct or not.

The reason I’m doing this is that Monckton challenges his critics to check his sources, or like he put it in this debate “to do your homework”. I’m going to follow him up on this to see if the scientific literature, and other available sources, corroborate what he’s saying.

Video description

On the 19th of July in 2011 the National Press Club of Australia held a debate on climate change. I will be analysing the claims Monckton made during the debate and if they are correct or not.

In this particular section of the debate Monckton makes the claim that Greenpeace has been taken over by Marxists. I'll be looking into what is used to base this claim on and if this is a fair assessment.

Transcript

STEVE LEWIS:
Next one. Next question from Simon Grose.

QUESTION:
From Science Media. Last week in the north of this town we had an attack by some Greenpeace activists on a GM, an experimental plot of GM wheat, and it reminded me of the symmetry between the public attitudes and acceptance, or lack of when it comes to climate science, or when it comes to GM plant science. In both cases we have a very strong scientific consensus. And in both cases we have a small minority of people who are seen to be sceptics, deniers, ratbags, iconoclasts.

So I just want to ask both of you - why is it uncool to be a climate science denier, but it's cool to be a GM science denier?

[...]

CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON:
Well hey, baby, I think that climate science scepticism is cool. And I think we ought to just mention a little bit about the history of Greenpeace, because it was founded among others by a friend of mine, the late Eric Ellington who sadly died earlier this year.

Now Eric was a lovely man. He was totally non-political. He, like Patrick Moore, and the other founders of Greenpeace, were true carers for the environment. They loved nature - they didn't want us to despoil it. They wanted to raise our consciousness of it. And they established Greenpeace to do just that.

And with great sadness, this entirely non-political person said to me one day that he and many of his fellow founders of Greenpeace had had to leave the organisation after a few years because - and this is how he put it - it had been taken over by Marxists who had not the slightest interest in the environment, but were willing to use it as a pretext for continuing the battle to bring down the west.

So there is - and this was one of the founders of Greenpeace, this is what he said, he's not the only one; Patrick Moore has publicly said what Eric has said to me privately.

There is a feeling that these environmental movements have been captured by political forces who are not necessarily friendly to the west and our way of life.

So that's one side of it.

This is not exactly a science claim but one that is big enough to take a look at. One that confused me a bit in the beginning.

The first person Monckton names, one Eric Ellington, isn't mentioned in any public records as one of the founders of Greenpeace. The only sources that mention Ellington as a founder can be traced back to Monckton. No secondary sources that I can find are available that make the same claim, nor are there any sources linking his name to Greenpeace.

I did manage to find public records on an Eric Ellington, a Scottish society photographer. I contacted Monckton to check if I had indeed found the correct Eric Ellington, which he did confirm. It should be noted that he made an interesting mistake in the e-mail that he sent me. In it he also seems to be referring to Eric Ellington as an early member of Greenpeace. This might indicate that even Monckton is aware that Eric Ellington is not one of the founders of Greenpeace

The second person Monckton names, Patrick Moore, is a different story. Public records linking him to an early involvement with Greenpeace are available, particularly with Greenpeace Canada. But, he's also not a founder of Greenpeace as it was founded in 1970. The letter where Moore states his desire to join Greenpeace was sent in 1971. Interestingly enough, Monckton also refers to Moore as an early member of Greenpeace in his response to me.

However these are just minor details. The bigger problem is with the accusation by Patrick Moore that Greenpeace has been taken over by Marxists. One of the causes of this seems to be his rejection of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Let me quote him from a letter addressed to the Royal Society:

I am sure the Royal Society is aware of the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. It is clear the contention that human-induced CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels in the global atmosphere are the cause of the present global warming trend is an hypothesis that has not yet been elevated to the level of a proven theory. Causation has not been demonstrated in any conclusive way.

This is just the start. He has described clearcut logging as “making clearings where new trees can grow in the sun”. Moore also opines that clearcut might mean the extinction of one species but, and I quote, “it provides an opportunity for a new species to take its place”, end quote.

He has also defended the company Asia Pulp and Paper, saying it “engage[s] in word-class sustainable forest management”. This is the same company that has come under severe criticism for clear cutting vast tracks of indonesian rainforest and turning it into cheap paper, very cheap paper. Damaging the local ecosystem in the process.

This is just a small sample of Moore's activities and statements. It's what puts Moore at odds with environmental organisations. Because his opinions are such at odds with these organisations, it has influenced how he sees them. He has said that they have “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism” and that, “environmentalism has become anti-globalization and anti-industry”.

I'm not saying that there are no people that have links with marxism, or are actually against industrialisation. Environmentalism is large enough that there are of course some more extreme elements in it. The Earth Liberation Front comes to mind. But the vast majority, including me, has absolutely no problem with industrialisation. We want to work together with companies to create an economy that doesn't harm the environment. We want companies and communities to benefit from protecting their local environment and profiting from it.

Just take a look at the following video about tuna fishing from Greenpeace for an example of this:

NARRATOR:
The Pacific is the last ocean where relatively healthy numbers of tuna still remain. More than seventy percent of the world's favourite fish is caught in these tropical waters.

But the calm, clear Pacific ocean belies a harsh reality. The once seemingly inexhaustable tuna stocks are under huge pressure from unsustainable and illegal fishing practices.

Of the four commercially fished Pacific tuna species, yellowfin and big eye tuna, are now in steep decline.And even the more resilient skipjack, the most commonly canned tuna could soon be in serious trouble.

[...]

Over the past decades, Pacific Island nations have been selling fishing rights to foreign fleets who have been taking fish and profits elsewhere. But now the Pacific is starting to develop its own fishing industry with a view to retain profits in the region and catch fish in a more responsible way.

Greenpeace is promoting these more sustainable fishing techniques such as catching free swimming schools and fishing by pole and line. These methods result in less bycatch of
young tuna and non target species such as sharks and are therefore less harmful to tuna stocks and the wider ecosystem.

On land, Greenpeace has pressured retailers and tuna brands to source their tuna from these more environmentally and socially responsible fisheries.

SARI TOLVANEN:
We have seen massive changes in the retail sector over the last few years and there is an ever increasing demand for sustainable tuna products from the consumers.

We now need to eliminate unsustainable fishing practices from the supply chain and ensure that more of the economic benefits are staying with the Pacific Island countries.

NARRATOR:
For the people in the Pacific, fish is the most important source of food and jobs. And for their countries, tuna represents a crucial opportunity for economic development.

Through its work in the Pacific, Greenpeace aims to safeguard a future for the tuna and the people who depend on it.

This is just one of the examples where Greenpeace helps to stimulate a local sustainable industry that benefits the local economy, and in turn the local inhabitants. This is a far cry from being a Marxist organisation that is anti-business.

There are valid points of criticism you can raise against Greenpeace, for example the GM issues, but accusing them of being taken over by Marxists is not one of them.

5 reader comments

Constructive and on-topic comments that move the discussion forward are always welcome, no matter what line of argumentation they take. Comments that add nothing interesting or which try to derail discussions won't be allowed. The rules for commenting are defined in our Community and Discussion Guidelines and Site Terms and Conditions of Use.

The first person Monckton names, one Eric Ellington, isn’t mentioned in any public records as one of the founders of Greenpeace.

I’m talking about records stating him as being a founder. I actually say I found some public records on Eric Ellington, and I linked to those:

I did manage to find public records on an Eric Ellington, a Scottish society photographer.

The source you just cited also doesn’t say he’s a founder, he’s a contributor. Meaning he’s an early member who helped during the early years of Greenpeace. I can’t find any other references to Ellington in that book, which again indicates he didn’t play a big role. This corroborates what Monckton said in the email to me that Eric Ellington is an early member.

What you gave me does invalidate me saying “there [aren’t] any sources linking his name [Eric Ellington] to Greenpeace.”. I’ve stricken that passage from the above transcript and I’ll add something to the video later today.

Point taken, but again, there are records (a book on the history of Greenpeace) that Mr Ellington was a contributor in the early days of Greenpeace, and that’s what I was highlighting.

As for founding members, you may want to look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace Here’s an excerpt: “Greenpeace itself calls the protest voyage of 1971 as “the beginning”.[41] According to Patrick Moore, who was an early member but has since distanced himself from Greenpeace, and Rex Weyler, the name of “The Don’t Make a Wave Committee” was officially changed to Greenpeace Foundation in 1972.[39][42] Because of the early phases spanning several years, there are differing views on who can be called the founders of Greenpeace.
Vanessa Timmer has referred the early members as “an unlikely group of loosely organized protestors”.[40] Frank Zelko has commented that “unlike Friends of the Earth, for example, which sprung fully formed from the forehead of David Brower, Greenpeace developed in a more evolutionary manner. There was no single founder”.[43] Greenpeace itself says on its web page that “there’s a joke that in any bar in Vancouver, Canada, you can sit down next to someone who claims to have founded Greenpeace. In fact, there was no single founder: name, idea, spirit and tactics can all be said to have separate lineages”.[38] Patrick Moore has said that “the truth is that Greenpeace was always a work in progress, not something definitively founded like a country or a company. Therefore there are a few shades of gray about who might lay claim to being a founder of Greenpeace.”[39] Early Greenpeace director Rex Weyler says on his homepage that the insiders of Greenpeace have debated about the founders since mid-1970’s.[44] ”

You’re not adding anything new and it doesn’t in any way change that Eric Ellington isn’t a founder. He’s an early member who played a very minor role during the early days of Greenpeace. What you’re saying also doesn’t change the fact that Monckton presented him as a founder when he wasn’t.

Pitch an idea

Want to Write?

Advertisement

Welcome

The goal of Real Skeptic is to take a critical look at scientific claims and investigate what the scientific literature and experts say about it. As skepticism doesn’t start with the viewpoints and claims of others, and being skeptical about those does not make you a skeptic. Being a skeptic starts with examining your own viewpoints, the positions you hold, and the claims you make.